Wadena Pyatt and Bang Hitz Publishing v. Usher Raymond, Iv, AKA Usher, Et

11-2507-cv Wadena Pyatt and Bang Hitz Publishing v. Usher Raymond, IV, AKA Usher, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 6th day of February, two thousand and ten. 5 6 PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, 7 PETER W. HALL, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 11 12 13 WADENA PYATT, BANG HITZ PUBLISHING, 14 15 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 16 17 - v. - 11-2507-cv 18 19 USHER RAYMOND, IV, AKA USHER, ALICIA AUGELLO COOK, AKA 20 ALICIA KEYS, KRUCIAL KEYS, INC., JEFFREY ROBINSON, MBK 21 ENTERTAINMENT, INC., SONY BMG MANAGEMENT CO. LLC, SONY MUSIC 22 ENTERTAINMENT DIGITAL, LLC., ZOMBA RECORDING LLC, ARISTA 23 RECORDS INCORPORATED, LA FACE RECORDS, INC., EMI MUSIC 24 PUBLISHING, INC., JERMAINE DUPRE MAULDIN, AKA JERMAINE 25 DUPRE, MAURICE RYAN TOBY, AKA RYAN TOBY, ANDRE HARRIS, VIDAL 26 DAVIS, JASON BOYD, DOMINIQUE MURO, EMI APRIL MUSIC, INC., 27 PLADIS MUSIC, INC., C. SILLS PUBLISHING, INC., HITCO MUSIC 28 PUBLISHING LLC, DIRTY DRE MUSIC/UNIVERSAL PUBLISHING INC., 29 DOUBLE OH EIGHT MUSIC/UNIVERSAL PUBLISHING, INC., POO BZ 30 PUBLISHING, INC., SONY BMG, SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, INC., 31 SONY/ATV MUSIC PUBLISHING, LLC, UNIVERSAL MUSIC CORP., 32 SONY/ATV TUNES, LLC, 33 Defendants- Appellees 34 35 1 FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT PRITCHARD (Anthony J. Gallo, on 2 the brief), Gallo & Associates, PLLC, 3 Plainview, NY 4 5 FOR APPELLEE: JOHN J. ROSENBERG, Rosenberg & Giger, 6 Alicia Augello P.C., New York, NY. 7 Cook aka Alicia 8 Keys & Krucial 9 Keys, Inc., et al. 10 11 FOR APPELLEE: JONATHAN D. DAVIS, P.C., New York, NY 12 Usher Raymond, 13 Sony BMG Management, 14 Co., et al. 15 16 FOR APPELLEE: CHRISTINE LEPERA, Mitchell Silberberg & 17 Jason Boyd, Hitco Knupp LLP, New York, NY. 18 Music Publishing 19 LLC & Poo BZ Publishing, Inc. 20 21 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 22 Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.) 23 24 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 25 AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District 26 Court for the Southern District of New York be AFFIRMED. 27 Plaintiffs-Appellants Wadena Pyatt and Bang Hitz 28 Publishing appeal from a judgment of the United States 29 District Court for the Southern District of New York 30 (McMahon, J.), dismissing their complaint pursuant to Rule 31 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 32 underlying facts and procedural history. 33 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal pursuant 34 to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. In this case, we affirm for the 2 1 well-stated reasons of the court below. The originally 2 registered copyrights and Usher’s “Caught Up” have little in 3 common beyond the title and the phrase “Caught Up.” The 4 songs are lyrically and musically distinct and the district 5 court correctly concluded that the claim failed the ordinary 6 observer test. See Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 7 F.3d 101, 111 fn. 3 (2d Cir. 2001). 8 We also affirm because we agree with the district 9 court’s interpretation of the complaint as alleging 10 copyright infringement only with respect to the originally 11 copyrighted works. Appellants contend the district court 12 misconstrued the complaint when it held that the 13 subsequently registered works (those registered after filing 14 of the complaint and after Defendants’ motions to dismiss 15 were filed) were incorporated in Appellants’ copyright 16 infringement claims. The complaint’s broad references to 17 “materials,” “works,” and “versions” are simply insufficient 18 to bring post-complaint registrations within the scope of 19 the complaint’s allegations. This is so especially because 20 the "Copyright Act . . . requires copyright holders to 21 register their works before suing for copyright 22 infringement." Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S.Ct. 23 1237, 1241 (2010) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 411(a)). 3 1 Appellants claim that the court, in interpreting the 2 complaint, should have considered certain documents that 3 Appellants attached to their opposition to Defendants’ 4 motions to dismiss. These documents (lyric sheets and 5 expert reports regarding subsequently registered works) were 6 not attached to or integrated into the complaint, or 7 incorporated therein. The district court did not err by 8 declining to examine them. See DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable LLC, 9 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010). 10 Finally, we affirm the district court’s denial of 11 Appellants’ motion for leave to amend the complaint. We 12 review de novo denials of motions to amend based on a 13 determination that amendment would be futile. Hutchison 14 v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., 647 F.3d 479, 490 (2d Cir. 15 2011). Amendment under rule 15(a) was futile in this case 16 because only an allegation that Defendants infringed on 17 Appellants’ newly-registered copyrights could have 18 potentially allowed Appellants to state a claim for 19 relief. Appellants’ proposed amended complaint failed to 20 allege these new copyrights and Appellants did not move 21 for leave to file a supplemental pleading, see Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 15(d). In the face of this inaction, the district 23 court had no duty to order sua sponte further amendment or 24 supplementation. 4 1 2 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the 3 district court is hereby AFFIRMED. 4 5 FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7 8 5